Residents are looking to overturn planning approval for 785 apartments on the grounds of St Vincent’s Hospital in Fairview, Co Dublin.
Five appeals on behalf of residents in the north Dublin suburb and the Ierne Social and Sports Club have been lodged with An Bord Pleanála.
Dublin City Council granted permission for the €300 million scheme after reducing the number of units from 811 to 785, a move that involved losing the top two storeys on the tallest 13-storey block.
The applicants, St Vincent’s Hospital Fairview, have also lodged an appeal against three conditions attached to the planning permission, but are not challenging the reduction in the number of units or reduction in height of the 13-storey block.
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
The key decisions now facing Donald Trump which will have a big impact on the Irish economy
MenoPal app offers proactive support to women going through menopause
Ezviz RE4 Plus review: Efficient budget robot cleaner but can suffer from wanderlust under the wrong conditions
The large-scale residential development scheme comprises 303 build-to-rent units at Richmond Road and Convent Avenue. The scheme on the 23.4-acre site is being developed by Royalton Group, a British property development firm, in partnership with the board of St Vincent’s Hospital Fairview.
Under the terms of the deal, Royalton will build a new 73-bedroom mental health facility for St Vincent’s, which is currently located in a listed building that is more than 100 years old.
Architects for the scheme, Scott Tallon Walker, said the application provided the opportunity for “new, high-density housing on underutilised land” as well as fully funding the construction of the new hospital “and the refurbishment and reuse of the protected structures”.
Among the objectors to the scheme listed are: Martin Kirk, the Ierne Social and Sports Club, Hogan View Management Company, and Michael Callanan and others.
Planning consultant, Michael Halligan, on behalf of Michael Callanan and others, said the proposed development would constitute serious overdevelopment of the backland site and would “seriously injure the amenities” of the appellants because of loss of amenity and privacy, overlooking and visual obtrusiveness.
He also said it would “seriously devalue the appellants’ property”, arguing that the “significant” devaluation is a valid consideration to be taken into account in the assessment of the proposal.
“It cannot be taken as acceptable that a transfer of value from existing residents (loss) to the developer (profit) be unquestioned,” he said.
Mr Halligan said proposed development should either be refused permission or substantially reduced in scale to protect neighbouring properties and the skyline/streetscape.
While he said he was acting on behalf of five local residents, Mr Halligan said their concerns were representative of the views and concerns of many local residents.
